Kiranwati vs State Of Haryana And Another

Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court

LPA-2096-2026
- 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
119
LPA-2096-2026
Kiranwati
... Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and another
... Respondents
Judgment
Reserved
on
Judgment
Pronounced
on
Judgment
Uploaded
on
Whether only
the operative
part of the
judgment is
pronounced
Whether the
full judgment is
pronounced
02.09.2026 09.09.2026 10.09.2026 No Yes
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH GAUR
Present: Mr. Yashasvi A. Kumar, Advocate and
Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

SUVIR SEHGAL, J.
1. By way of this appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters
Patent, appellant has assailed order dated 30.04.2026 passed by learned Single
Judge, whereby a writ petition filed by her impugning order dated 08.11.2025,
Annexure P1, passed by the Collector under Section 50 of the Indian Stamp
Act 1899 (for short- ‘the Act’) has been upheld.
BRIJ MOHAN BHALLA
2026.09.10 18:15
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.

LPA-2096-2026
- 2-
2. Necessary facts are that appellant had purchased stamp
papers on 28.12.2023 of the value of Rs.6 lakhs for a proposed purchase of
property. The proposal did not fructify and the stamp papers were not used for
execution of a sale agreement or for any other purpose. Appellant filed an
application for refund of the stamp duty on 22.07.2025, which was rejected by
the Collector vide order dated 08.12.2025, Annexure P1, as being time barred
under Section 50 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short ‘the Act’). Writ
petition filed by the appellant assailing the said order has been dismissed by a
learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment giving rise to the present
appeal.
3. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the approach
of the respondents, as affirmed by the learned Single Judge, is highly
technical. Placing reliance upon Sections 49 and 50 of the Act as well as
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bano Saiyed Parwaz Versus Chief
Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration and
Controller of Stamps & Ors. (2025) 2 SSC 201 as well as on Committee -
GFIL Versus Libra Buildtech Private Limited and others (2015) 16 SCC 31 ,
it has been urged that as the appellant was unable to complete the transactions
for reasons beyond her control, her claim for refund of the stamp fee ought not
to have been rejected on a purely limitation based technicality.
4. Per contra , State counsel has argued that Section 50 of the
Act prescribes a mandatory period of six months for seeking refund of the
value of stamp papers on which no instrument has been executed. It is her
assertion that no power of condonation has been vested with the statutory
BRIJ MOHAN BHALLA
2026.09.10 18:15
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.

LPA-2096-2026
- 3-
authority and neither the writ Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution, can condone the delay. She states that judgments relied
upon by the appellant are based on different facts. She has drawn strength from
a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Prem Rani Versus State of
Haryana and others , Law Finder Doc Id # 2963268 to submit that this Court
has taken a consistent view that limitation prescribed under Section 50 of the
Act has to be strictly construed.
5. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the
paper-book including the judgment under appeal.
6. An examination of Sections 49 and 50 of the Act shows
that they provide for refund of the stamp duty, which has not been used,
however both the provisions operate in distinct fields. The primary purpose
behind Section 49 of the Act is to provide financial relief by allowing a refund
or exchange for stamp papers that have been inadvertently spoiled, damaged,
or rendered useless before being utilized in a transaction. Its objective is to
ensure that purchasers of stamp paper are not unfairly penalized or financially
burdened for genuine and accidental errors. On the other hand, Section 50 of
the Act deals with cases where stamp paper has been purchased but no
instrument whatsoever has been executed upon it, as is admittedly the position
here. Section 50 (2) ibid requires an application in respect of unused stamp
papers be made within a period of six months from the date of purchase.
Appellant’s case clearly falls under Section 50 of the Act and her application
was made far beyond the prescribed period.
BRIJ MOHAN BHALLA
2026.09.10 18:15
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.

LPA-2096-2026
- 4-
7. Both the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the
appellant are not attracted to the facts of the present case. In Bano Saiyed
Parvaz’s case (supra), purchaser was defrauded by the vendor, who had
already sold the property to a third party. Purchaser had applied online for the
refund within the statutory period and thereafter pursued the matter diligently,
though a cancellation deed was executed much later with the intervention of
police. In this background, Supreme Court held that the timely application by
purchaser could not be rejected because evidence of the cancellation deed was
not available on the date of the application. Supreme Court observed that
expiry of limitation would bar the remedy but not the right and directed the
refund notwithstanding the delay. In Committee - GIFL’s case (supra),
purchaser had paid the entire sale consideration and stamp duty pursuant to
judicial orders in a sale supervised by a Court. Sale deed was executed in his
favour, but possession could not be delivered because the seller was unable to
perform its obligation. Relief was granted by the Supreme Court
notwithstanding the fact that limitation period had expired as specific liberty
had been reserved by the Court, in its earlier order, directing the refund of the
sale consideration on failure of the transaction.
8. Facts of the present case are materially distinguishable
from both the judgments. As per appellant’s own showing, she could not
conclude the proposed transaction with the intending vendor and filed an
application for refund of the unused stamp papers after an unexplained delay
of more than two years. Rather, appellant has even failed to specify the date on
which the proposed transaction could not materialize. No explanation
BRIJ MOHAN BHALLA
2026.09.10 18:15
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.

LPA-2096-2026
- 5-
whatsoever has been offered for this delay at any stage. In Prem Rani's case
(supra), a Division Bench of this Court has observed that limitation prescribed
under Section 50 of the Act is mandatory and has to be strictly construed. The
underlying object of the provision is to ensure that the claims of this nature
attain finality and that stale claims are not permitted to be opened at the option
of an applicant. This Court, therefore, does not find any infirmity or perversity
in the view taken by the learned Single Judge, whereby appellant’s claim for
refund has been rejected on the ground of limitation.
9. For the aforegoing reasons, this Court does not find any
merit in the appeal, which is dismissed. No order as to cost.
10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
JUDGE
(RAJESH GAUR)
JUDGE
09.09.2026
Brij
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
BRIJ MOHAN BHALLA
2026.09.10 18:15
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.